jpteo1(1)june02

8/3/2019 jpteo1(1)june02

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jpteo11june02 1/15

J. Phys. Tchr. Educ. Online 1(1), June 2002 Page 1 © 2002 Illinois State University Physics Dept.

J OURNAL OF P HYSICS T EACHER E DUCATION

O NLINE

Vol. 1, No. 1 www.phy.ilstu.edu/jpteo June 2002

J OURNAL OF P HYSICS

T EACHER E DUCATION O NLINE

Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online is dedicated

to investigating and documenting significant issues and

challenges in the education of physics teacher candidates, and in

the professional development of inservice high school, college,

and university physics teachers. The purpose of Journal of

Physics Teacher Education Online is to establish a forum through

which the scholarship of teaching and learning can be exchanged

widely and built upon. The hope is to support the development

of new models of physics teacher preparation and education that

foster deep and lasting understanding as well as quality teaching,

while underlining the character of teaching itself as a scholarly

endeavor worthy of recognition, support, and reward. With a focus

on the scholarship of teaching, the journal seeks to generate

discussion and promulgate sustainable, long-term changes in

educational research, policy and practice. Journal articles will

foster deep, significant, lasting learning for physics educators

and improve their ability to develop teacher candidates’understanding, skills, and dispositions, and to assist inservice

teachers as they grow through professional development

activities.

Physics teacher educators, often only one individual working

within a department of physics teaching methods courses with

the intent of preparing future teachers, are frequently isolated

from their peers due to a lack of a medium of exchange. As a

result, those who engage in innovative acts of teaching do not

have many opportunities to share their work, and to build upon

the work of others. Without an opportunity to share with like-

minded peers, teacher educators are likely to remain isolated,

and unable to benefit from or advance the work of the physics

teacher education on a broader basis. Fortunately, renewed publicinterest in education reform, the development of teacher

preparation standards, and some inspiring models from physics

teacher education programs around the country provide hope that

the time is right for change. The work of educating future physics

teachers often involves significant shifts in thought and practice.

For physics teacher education faculty, physics teacher preparation

is a private act, limited to the teacher and students. Such practice

is rarely evaluated by professional peers, again, due to a lack of

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

1 Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online

3 A comparison between traditional and

“modeling” approaches to undergraduate

physics instruction at two universities with

implications for improving physics teacher

preparation. James Vesenka, Paul Beach, Gerardo Munoz,

Floyd Judd & Roger Key

8 Intensive summer program at Kenyon

College for high school teachers.

Thomas B. Greenslade, Jr.

13 Clinical experiences for high school

physics teacher candidates:

Classroom Management Styles

Built Environment Checklist

Carl J. Wenning

J PTEO PTEO

8/3/2019 jpteo1(1)june02



readily and widely accessible forum to exchange ideas and share

procedures.

The time is right for the introduction of a peer-reviewed

journal for physics teacher education. With efforts beginning

nationwide to reformulate physics teacher preparation (such as

the PhysTEC program), the JPTEO will serve as a valuable forum

to enhance that process. JPTEO is intended primarily for those

with a stake in physics teacher preparation: employers, physics

teacher educators, high school physics teachers, college anduniversity physicists, PhysTEC members, and PER faculty to

name but a few. Not only will these individuals be the main

readers of JPTEO; they also will be the main contributors.

Contributions are now being solicited for upcoming issues of

JPTEO which will be published on a quarterly basis beginning

with June 2002. Articles are now being sought that deal with any

phase of teacher candidate preparation or continuing professional

development of inservice secondary physics teachers.

As with any new publication, there are bound to be difficult

times, but especially at the outset. Creating and maintaining any

sort of journal requires a commitment from its readership to

submit articles of interest and worth in a timely fashion. Withoutsuch contributions, any journal is bound to fail. It is my hope as

founder and editor-in-chief of this publication that you will help

to see that the JPTEO becomes a forum of lively exchange by

submitting articles for consideration and publication.

Detailed information about contributing to JPTEO can be

found on the journal’s website at www.phy.ilstu.edu/jpteo.

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Carl J. Wenning Dept. of Physics

Illinois State Univ.

Campus Box 4560

Normal, IL 61790-4560

[email protected]

JOURNAL OF PHYSICS TEACHER EDUCATION

ONLINE

Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online is published

by the Department of Physics at Illinois State University in Nor-

mal, Illinois. Editorial comments and comments of other authors

do not necessarily reflect the views of Illinois State University,

the Department of Physics, or its editor-in-chief. JPTEO is avail-

able through the WWW at www.phy.ilstu.edu/jpteo. To subscribe

to this journal, send an e-mail to the editor noting that you wish

to be added to the notification list. When issues are publishedonline, subscribers will receive electronic notification of avail-

ability. JPTEO is published on a quarterly basis. Issues appear

online during March, June, September, and December. It is avail-

able free of charge through the JPTEO website. JPTEO is

downloadable in portable document file (PDF) format. All con-

tents of this publication are copyrighted by the Illinois State Uni-

versity Department of Physics.

yksrovdovoNdirgnI

anozirAf oytisrevinU

ZA,noscuT

EMASEC,namkciHluaP

ytisrevinUnretsaehtroN

AM,notsoB

iggaJardneraN

ytisrevinUnayelseWsionillI

LI,notgnimoolB

tobaJleahciM

ainoderFYNUS

YN,ainoderF

itraM-sarGtreblA

tnacalAf oytisrevinU

)niapS(ainolataC,tnacalA

ztiveknatSmiJ

SHhtuoSellivnerraWnotaehW

LI,notaehW

akneseVsemaJ

dnalgnEweNf oytisrevinU

EM,drof eddiB

nrohtakceHkciD

ACVCrehcaeTscisyhP

HO,sllaFagohayuC

trenietSf f eJ

loohcShgiHelttiLdrawdE

EM,nrubuA

nawogeMneelloC

SHhsiweJztrawhcSsseJ

ZA,xineohP

nosleNmiJ

sloohcScilbuPytCelonimeS

LF,drof naS

notroH.BtreboR

ytisrevinUnretsewhtroN

LI,notsnavE

werdnAhtieK

ytisrevinUsionillInretsaE

LI,notselrahC

caasIcaMnaD

ytisrevinUanozirAnrehtroN

ZA,f f atsgalF

beilttoG.HtrebreH

SHneruBnaVnitraM

YN,egalliVsneeuQ

rekattihWf f eJ

hceT&rgnEf oymedacA

IM,sthgieHnrobraeD

hcaLleahciM

sloohcScilbuPogacihC

LI,ogacihC

emtergOnishuM

ytisrevinUicizagoB

yekruT,lubnatsI

rolyaT.AhpesoJ

SCSBtaretneCICSehT

OC,sgnirpSodaroloC

droFmoT

ecruoSecneicSehT

EM,orobodlaW

allebaS.SleM

ytisrevinUetatSogacihC

LI,ogacihC

namhciEnesnetsirhCyaKailuJ

SHytnuoCdlanoDcM

OM,nosrednA

EDITORS & REVIEWERS

The following individuals have graciously agreed to serve as edi-

tors and reviewers for this publication. This publication would

not be possible without their assistance.

8/3/2019 jpteo1(1)june02



The “modeling method” of physics instruction has improved

student scores compared to traditional instruction based in part

on standardized assessments in high school physics classrooms

around the country1. But will the modeling approach work in a

larger university classroom? What are the pitfalls of trying to

“scale up” a lab-intensive high school instructional approach to a

traditional three lecture/week, three-hour lab section college

course? What impact can be made on retraining experienced phys-

ics educators and providing experiential teacher training to newinexperienced teachers?

This paper documents the adaptation and implementation of

the modeling approach by the principle author at two similar uni-

versities on opposite coasts of the United States. The effort was

evaluated through class averages on four nationally recognized

standardized assessments developed for mechanics. The content

of the traditional and modeling sections was kept the same dur-

ing the study. Only the instruction process differed. This paper

attempts to provide objective, quantitative evidence from side-

by-side comparisons of two universities indicating the differences

between traditional and modeling instruction in terms of student

achievement. Additionally, feedback from the lab instructors

trained in the modeling approach was used to determine the im-

pact of the instruction in their personal teaching habits.

The two comprehensive universities involved in this study

were California State University Fresno (CSUF) and the Univer-

sity of New England (UNE). CSUF is a public university near the

geographic center of California with a total enrollment of 18000

students. UNE is a private institution located on the southern coast

of Maine with an enrollment of 2500 students. CSUF is a minor-

ity serving institution with 48% white, non-Hispanic background

and UNE is 95% white, non-Hispanic background institution.

Other than location and diverse populations, the introductory gen-

eral physics populations at both schools are remarkably similar,

comprised primarily of life sciences and pre-physical therapy

majors. The average combined SAT scores for physics students

at both schools was around 1050 at the time of this study. During

the study, algebra-based physics instruction consisted of three one-

hour lectures and a weekly lab (3 hours at CSUF, 2-3 hours at

UNE). Lecture sections at both schools ranged in size from 40-80 students. Lastly, most students (≈ 70%) at both universities

self-reported taking high school physics, algebra and trigonom-

etry. Modeling instruction was used by the first author (JV) in

lecture for all four years of the study.

The course was designed such that much of the modeling

“cycle” was completed in lab, from pre-lab discussion to consen-

sus development. Lab instructors played a pivotal role in the de-

velopment of physics understanding of the students, thus em-

phasis was placed on training lab instructors in the modeling pro-

cess. Following the recommendations by Arons2, “operational

definitions” and lab activities culminated in the development of

mental pictures and definitions needed to describe the experimen-

tal datum. This approach is in opposition to more traditional in-

struction in which mathematical derivations are typically provided

first and confirmed in lab. Our lab instructors were expected to

employ Socratic dialog3 to elucidate core models to describe para-

digm lab activities. The models were then applied and validated

in workbook and “deployment” activities in class. Model deploy-

ment consisted of interesting and hopefully even amusing activi-

ties (e.g. “kissing an egg with a mass on a spring”) to test the

student-generated models. Any representation was allowed to

A comparison between traditional and “modeling” approaches to undergraduate

physics instruction at two universities with implications for improving physics

teacher preparation.

James Vesenka & Paul Beach

Chemistry/Physics Dept., Univ. New England, 11 Hills Beach Rd., Biddeford, ME 04005

E-Mail: [email protected]

Gerardo Munoz, Floyd Judd, & Roger Key

Physics Department, CSU Fresno, 2345 E. San Ramon MS#37, Fresno CA 93740-0037

“Modeling instruction” was adapted and implemented in undergraduate algebra-based physics courses at California

State University Fresno and the University of New England. Comparisons of standardized assessments were made between

traditionally taught general physics sections and a “modeling” physics section at the two universities over a four year period.

An essential ingredient in this enterprise was the preparation of lab instructors faithfully trained in the modeling approach.

The motivations for this effort were twofold: 1) To help determine if an undergraduate general physics sequence might

benefit from the adoption of multi-representational instructional approach addressing alternative conceptions in a more

constructivist manner. 2) Development of an experiential learning environment to train physics educators in the modeling

process.

Students in the modeling sections achieved, on the average, a one-half standard deviation or higher score over their

traditional lecture counterparts, as measured by standardized assessments. Most significantly, the normalized gain on theForce Concepts Inventory for the modeling students was two times greater than their traditional-lecture peers at both schools.

The lab instructors universally found modeling instruction to be a major improvement over traditional teaching approaches.

The majority of these teachers are enthusiastic modeling converts in their own classrooms today.

8/3/2019 jpteo1(1)june02



make a prediction, be it verbal, graphical, diagrammatic or math-

ematical.

The modeling cycle JV adapted to the algebra-based general

physics sequence at CSUF and UNE used lecture time to further

develop lab models and focus on communicating his students’

understanding through whiteboard presentations. The lab instruc-

tors (either JV or his modeling trainees) were responsible for

“mining” graphical, diagrammatic, and mathematical represen-

tations from the students after the lab was completed. Since suc-cess hinged on lab instructor expertise4, we spent as much time in

pre-lab preparation as the instructors spent in lab with their stu-

dents. The lab instructors used their newly developed skills in the

modeling process with their charges. In some cases alternative

conceptions of the lab instructors had to be confronted first be-

fore they were able to successfully guide their students through

the lab activities. The models were revised further in class and

applied to workbook activities and class discussions. This instruc-

tion process represented a major shift from an interactive lecture

style JV had previously developed.

From 1995-1998 JV had employed interactive engagement

strategies such as “Peer Instruction”5, “Class Talk”6 and numer-

ous student-popular demonstrations to address common student

alternative conceptions. To determine student comprehension of

the coursework, JV used the normalized “gain”7 of a standard-

ized assessment, the Force Concepts Inventory (FCI8), before and

after taking first semester physics. At CSUF mechanics is offered

each semester to three sections taught by different instructors.

JV’s students had achieved an average “Normalized Gain” of 0.22

after a significant investment in interactive class development

and three years (six consecutive sections) of instructing mechan-

ics. This result was identical for the two other traditional lecture

sections taught at CSUF and equal to the national average for a

traditional physics lecture/lab course9! The result was surprising

and discouraging to JV who had fully expected larger FCI gainsfrom the interactive engagement nature of his course10.

JV participated in modeling instruction training sponsored

by Arizona State University in the summer of 1998 and initiated

a pilot study in the fall of ’98 to compare the efficacy of model-

ing instruction versus traditional instruction. A highly rated, ex-

perienced instructor (coauthor GM) taught one section using tra-

ditional lecture relying on an algebra-based college physics text.

JV used the modeling approach to teach a different section with-

out a required text. Additionally JV taught one modeling lab sec-

tion with computer-supported paradigm lab activities that pre-

ceded model development (in accordance with the modeling

cycle). All remaining lab sections relied on a traditional confir-

mation lab workbook developed for over 20 years at CSUF.At the time this study was undertaken modeling curriculum

was refined only through circular motion.11 To accommodate stu-

dent articulation from other CSU campuses, JV employed re-

sources, with permission from the publishers, including Randall

Knight’s studio physics workbook 12 for thermodynamics, Rich-

ard Hake’s S.D.I. labs13, and Dr. Lillian McDermott’s physics tu-

torials14 for rotational dynamics. The traditional and modeling

sections covered the same core content, only the approaches were

different. Both instructors used the same quizzes, including such

standardized assessments as the FCI15, the Test for Understand-

ing Graphics and Kinematics (TUG&K 16), and the mechanics

baseline test (MBT17). At the time of this study no relevant ther-

modynamics inventories were available. Consequently the last

quiz and final exam consisted of mutually agreed upon word prob-

lems.

Figure 1 indicates that the modeling students had improved

conceptual mechanics comprehension over their traditional lec-ture/lab colleagues, with no difference in quantitative reasoning

skills.

The encouraging initial outcomes, especially in lab, prompted

an expansion of the modeling curriculum to include all introduc-

tory mechanics lab students in spring of 1999. Another side-by-side comparison was made between the modeling class and stu-

dents taught by a different experienced traditional lecture instructor

(coauthor FJ, T1 on Figure 2). Pre- and post-FCI testing also in-

cluded the remaining traditional lecture section (T2). There were

three major changes to the study: 1) The Force & Motion18 diag-

nostic exam was employed for the second quiz, 2) JV did not

teach any lab sections, 3) and the final exam could not be com-

pared as the instructors opted to use different tests. JV was re-

Fig. 1. CSUF Fall ’98: The columns reflect four combinations of

lecture and lab students could take. Traditional lecture and lab,

“T Lec/Lab” (N = 57), and all modeling students regardless of

lab, “M Lec (all)” (N = 44). The modeling class was further bro-

ken down into students taking the traditional lab, “M Lec+T Lab”

(N = 24) or modeling lab, “M Lec+M Lab” (N = 20). Error bars

represent one standard deviation. Though the modeling and tra-ditional lecture classes had similar FCI post-test averages, the

modeling class pretest FCI average initially was lower. There-

fore the modeling class/lab students achieved the highest gains.

TUG&K = Test for Understanding Graphs and Kinematics16 , MBT

= Mechanics Baseline Test 17 , FCI = Force Concept Inventory15 ,

CQ = Conceptual Quiz, TQ = Traditional Quiz, TF = Traditional

Final Exam.

8/3/2019 jpteo1(1)june02



sponsible for lab instructor training and monitoring lab activities.

The lab instructors consisted of three masters candidates, one high

school physics teacher and two CSUF faculty members. None of

the instructors had any prior modeling experience. All students

undertook the modeling lab sequence and the two traditional lec-

ture instructors were kept abreast of the lab content. The results

from the diagnostic exams are summarized in Figure 2.

UNE:

JV was able to repeat the study in the fall of ’99 in a similar

undergraduate setting at the University of New England (UNE)

with the assistance of coauthor PB. The opportunity to make this

comparison was fortuitous, the result of a family decision to re-

turn to their New England roots. Prior to JV’s arrival, UNE had a

single lecture/lab instructor and used a commercially published

lab manual for five to six lab sections/semester, each with up to

18 students. Their lab equipment (circa 1970s) and facilities lacked

computer support. PB had taught in the fall of ’98 and adminis-

tered the TUG&K and FCI to his students to provide a baseline

comparison for this study. JV started as the full time physics in-structor at UNE in the fall of ’99. He taught all lecture sections,

three lab sections, and trained two lab instructors to cover the

remaining labs in the modeling style. Four mechanics diagnostic

assessments were administered and are summarized in Figure 3.

At both CSUF and UNE we encouraged earnest test taking

by including the assessments as part of each student’s grade. 19 All

instructors in this study were careful not to “teach to the test”,

and all instructors were required to take the assessments. The in-

tegrity of the tests was maintained by creating different versions

of the quizzes and taking the quizzes on the same day. Answer

keys were never posted and the assessments were only available

for student viewing during JV’s office-hours.

CSUF Results:

Comparison of the Fall ’98 test scores (Figure 1) indicated

students in JV’s class enjoyed a half standard deviation edge over

the traditional lecture students on concept-based exams. This edge

evaporated when quantitative exams were used. This result is

consistent with other studies comparing traditional and interac-

tive engagement strategies20

. The FCI “Normalized Gain”, for traditional lecture and lab yielded a modest 18% improvement

(gain = 0.26) over the previous high CSUF gain of 0.22. Students

taking the modeling lecture and traditional lab averaged a 32%

improvement (gain = 0.29). The students who took both the mod-

eling lecture and laboratory class averaged a 100% improvement

(gain = 0.44)! The modeling lecture and lab students had gradu-

ated from the lowest to medium gain categories on the Hake Plot9.

The modeling class scored significantly better (one standard de-

viation higher) on all standardized assessments when the com-

parison was repeated in the spring of 1999 as well (Figure 2).

Modeling students again enjoyed 100% higher FCI gains over

the traditional lecture students. It is important to note that model-

ing instruction students did no worse on quantitative exams thantraditional lecture, and had substantially improved conceptual

physics comprehension. Additionally JV was intentionally relieved

from lab instruction and trained the laboratory instructors only.

This act was undertaken to ensure that the comparison reflected

the instructional process only and not a measure of a single

teacher’s style. Note that the traditional lecture students enjoyed

higher gains than in the previous semester, we believe in part due

to employing modeling instruction in all the labs!

Fig. 2. CSUF Spring ’99: Students from all three general physics

sections took the modeling labs. The two traditional lecture sec-

tions, T1 (N = 54) and T2 (N = 66), achieved marginal FCI gains.

The gain by the modeling section (N = 33), M Lec, was again

100% higher than the previous highest CSUF gain of 0.22. Though

the post-test FCI scores for the Spring ’99 modeling class were

significantly higher than the Fall ’98 class, the Spring ‘99 stu-

dents had higher pretest scores, so the gains end up the same.

Note the wide standard deviations (error bars) on the T2 lecture

section, corresponding to students with negative gains. No stu-

dents from the modeling lecture attained a negative gain. F&M =

Force and Motion Exam18.

Fig. 3. UNE Fall ’98 and Fall ’99: The traditional lecture and

lab sequence was undertaken in the fall of ’98 along with the FCI

and TUG-K diagnostic exams (N = 72). JV taught the modeling

sequence in the fall of ’99 and all diagnostic assessments were

used (N = 88). Again, on two identical diagnostic exams the mod-

eling students appeared to be one standard deviation ahead of

their traditional instruction peers and had more than twice the

FCI gain compared to their traditional lecture peers.

8/3/2019 jpteo1(1)june02



UNE Results:

JV wanted to know if comparable gains could be achieved

from a similar student population at UNE. He was concerned that

the improved test results at CSUF might be an artifact of a self-

selected body of diligent students. This concern was based on

reliable information that JV’s class at CSUF was developing a

reputation of being “hard” (translated as challenging). The irony

of this reputation was that the curriculum was adapted from a

high school lab and exercise book. A comparison of traditionalversus modeling approaches of introductory physics instruction

at UNE achieved almost identical results to CSUF, including a

100% improvement in FCI gain from the modeling students. The

students participating in modeling instruction also achieved sub-

stantially higher scores on the standardized tests compared to tra-

ditional lecture students (Figure 3).

Lab Instructor Training:

Of the 13 lab instructors receiving experiential training in

the modeling approach at both CSUF and UNE, eight have adopted

modeling instruction in their classrooms. These instructors in-

cluded two professors, two graduate students, and four high school

instructors. Not all of the lab instructors were convinced by the

modeling approach to instruction. One skeptical university pro-

fessor said:

“I was very glad to have been involved in the modeling

approach since it made me aware of other teach modes

and/or techniques compared to the standard lecture/lab

format. It was an introduction to the heavy debate on

teaching methods in physics that are current now. How-

ever, I use almost none of the techniques from the mod-

eling instruction in my current teaching. Part of this has

to do with the fact that I’m teaching upper division

courses (the advanced undergraduate E&M for example).

From my limited introduction to modeling I don’t seehow it’s possible to run advanced courses with the mod-

eling technique. If I were teaching one of the lower divi-

sion courses for which the modeling technique is more

developed I’m still not sure I’d teach it in the modeling

way. The reason is that modeling doesn’t fit in with the

way I like to teach. I was never “comfortable” using

modeling. On the other hand I’ve spoken to other suc-

cessful modeling advocates and I think they are very

positive on modeling because it seems to fit in with their

teaching style. Even though I’m not using any of the

modeling techniques in my present teaching I think that

exposure to modeling was a good thing in that it got me

to think harder about what will work for my own teach-ing.”

Four former instructors mentioned that modeling made a positive

impact on how they communicated with the students, and by ex-

tension, how they communicate today in their nonacademic posi-

tions. One of these former instructors put it this way:

“... it is a little hard for me to tell what exposure to mod-

eling instruction made on my teaching since I am not a

full time teacher. I think, however, that using a model-

ing approach in the classes that I had at UNE allowed

me to find at least one path, one train of thought to get

the subject matter into the heads of the students. If they

didn’t understand the subject one way they might grasp

it another. If I could find that one path then I could make

sense to them, of the entire method, which generally re-

sulted in the student learning the model.”

However, the majority of the lab instructors are now enthusiastic

converts to modeling instruction. One former high school instruc-tor said this of modeling:

“Learning to use modeling instruction has profoundly

changed my teaching of high school general science and

physics. I would not yet consider myself a master of

modeling techniques, but every year I am incorporating

more of the pedagogy into my instructional practice. It

has made a tremendous difference. My classes are more

student-centered. My students are more comfortable ar-

ticulating their thinking processes. They are construct-

ing more of their own knowledge. They are more en-

gaged and less bored. Using modeling has brought very

positive recognition to my teaching. In the year 2000 I

was given a “Teacher of the Year” award by a commit-

tee of other teachers in my district. They observed a

modeling lesson and were completely blown away by

what my freshman science students were doing. In fact,

through most of the lesson many of them thought I was

teaching a senior level physics class. They were shocked

when I told them they were observing general science

freshman giving whiteboard presentations. Many teach-

ers in my department and elsewhere in my district are

now using whiteboards with there students. Modeling

was no “flash-in-the-pan” for my teaching. Its impact

continues to improve my own instruction and is influ-

encing the instruction of other teachers as well.”

Discussion:

The positive gains and mostly positive response from instruc-

tors need to be placed into context with the overall objective of

assisting our students at constructing physics knowledge based

on hands-on guided inquiry. Many students will simply not buy

into the process, especially if the course is a non-major require-

ment. Socratic dialog can be a very frustrating experience for

students successful in the art of memorization and regurgitation.

Some “A-students” from both CSUF and UNE were indignant,

some even outraged, about scoring at the mean on conceptual

assessments and quantitative reasoning exams after modeling in-

struction.Modeling instruction had other costs as well. Three will men-

tioned: lab instructor training, grading, and depth versus breadth.

Because the modeling instructor provides guided inquiry to their

charges, they must be fully conversant in the content and alterna-

tive conceptions. At CSUF the lab instructors ranged from gradu-

ate students through professors. At UNE, with no graduate pro-

gram, the lab instructors all held adjunct status and had at least a

masters degree. All lab instructors took the same assessments

8/3/2019 jpteo1(1)june02



administered to the students. Out of ten different instructors, four

(three professors and one high school teacher) obtained perfect

pretest scores on the assessments. The remaining instructors scored

in the 40-80% range (including two Ph.D. physicists). Post-test

scores for the instructors improved to an average of 85%. Unfor-

tunately this implies that some misconceptions were probably

being perpetuated. Lab instructor expertise and training is essen-

tial. This is a time consuming proposition and can be an expen-

sive for schools with few resources. For example, after JV’s de- parture from CSUF to UNE the lack of a faculty proponent for

modeling instruction resulted in a return to the traditional confir-

mation lab format.

Grading:

In JV’s hands the traditional lab report was a learning failure

at the college level. Copying of a lab partner’s results/analysis

was par for the course. Reports handed in a week after lab were

no more polished than those passed in immediately after lab. Lab

grade averages were always high, in the 95% range. Student com-

prehension of models varied widely. Physical representations

developed in lab are so important for effective deployment of the

mathematical models JV needed to find a better learning tool. He

has since swapped the graded lab report for weekly half hour lab

quizzes. The quiz content focused on review and application of

the previous week’s lab results obtained through class consensus.

The importance of the latter cannot be understated. Class consen-

sus allowed his students to take ownership of the knowledge they

were constructing. The weekly quizzes also provided an impor-

tant incentive to keep the students abreast of the models.

Depth vs. Breadth:

After this study was completed JV had the luxury of aban-

doning all pretense of covering the traditional first semester gen-

eral physics content at UNE, as there were no articulation restric-tions. JV concentrated on depth of conceptual comprehension,

covering only mechanics in the first semester. Students’ standard-

ized assessments have been steadily improving. A legitimate con-

cern raised by this emphasis is that improvement on mechanics

assessments is to be expected from a reduction of content. JV

believes this concern is unfounded for two reasons. His students

spend the extra time developing process and communication skills,

not merely more exposure to demonstrations or similar problems.

His students communicate their models through formative

whiteboard assessments, in class peer instruction, and laboratory

deployment activities.

The outcomes from this study at two universities indicate

that modeling instruction significantly improved student compre-hension in mechanics, without expense of content, based on es-

tablished standardized assessments. Importantly, this improve-

ment appeared to be independent of student demographics, class

size, or the instructor. Instructional training and use of the model-

ing approach appeared to have the greatest influence on student

learning. Lastly, it was possible to provide lab instructors with an

experiential learning environment to learn and “do” modeling

instruction simultaneously.

Acknowledgments:

The authors would like to thank the Center for Enhancement

of Teaching and Learning, the faculty from the CSUF Physics

Department, and NSF grant DUE9952668.

References:1. Malcolm Wells, David Hestenes, & David Swackhamer, 1995,

“A modeling method for high school physics instruction.”

Am. J. Phys. 63 (7), 606-619.

2. Arnold B. Arons, 1997, Teaching Introductory Physics, John

Wiley and Sons.

3. Richard R. Hake, 1992, “Socratic Pedagogy in the Introduc-

tory Physics Laboratory”, The Physics Teacher 30 (12), 546-

552.

4. Hestenes Lectures: http://faculty.une.edu/cas/jvesenka/mod-

eling/indeces/readings.htm

5. Eric Mazur, 1997, Peer Instruction, a User’s Manual, Prentice

Hall.

6. W. J. Gerace, W.J. Leonard, P. P. Mestre, and L. Wenk, 1996,

“Classtalk: A classroom communication system for active

learning,” J. Computing in Higher Ed. 7(2), 3-47.

7. Normalized gain = (FCI Post Test% - FCI Pre Test %)/(100%

- FCI Pre Test %)

8. David Hestenes, Malcolm Wells, and Gregg Swackhamer,

1992, “Force Concept Inventory”, The Physics Teacher 30

(3), 141-151.

9. Richard Hake, 1998, “Interactive-engagement vs traditional

methods: A six-thousand student survey of mechanics test

data for introductory physics courses,” Am. J. Phys. 66, 64-

74.

10. Ibid.11. http://modeling.asu.edu

12. Randall Knight, 1997, “Physics, a contemporary Perspec-

tive.” Used with permission from Addison Wesley.

13. Richard Hake’s web site: http://carini.physics.indiana.edu/

SDI/

14. Lillian C. McDermott, “Physics by Inquiry”, John Wiley &

Sons, Inc., (1996).

15. Revised 1995 version (30 questions).

16. Robert J. Beichner, 1994, “Test of Understanding Graphs in

Kinematics”. Am. J. Phys. 62 (8), 750-755.

17. David Hestenes & Malcolm Wells, “A Mechanics Baseline

Test”. The Physics Teacher, 30 (3), 159-162.

18. Priscilla Laws, “A New Order for Mechanics,” J. Wilson ed.,Proceedings on Conference for Introductory Physics Course,

(Wiley, 1997), p. 360.

19. Richard Hake, personal communication. He recommends

making the post-FCI worth between 1 and 2% of the student’s

final grade.

20. Chance Hoellworth, “Assessment of Traditional and Studio

Style Instruction Methods.”, AAPT Announcer, 28 (4), 90

(1998). Page 1

8/3/2019 jpteo1(1)june02



The Secondary School Enhancement Program in Physics at Kenyon College

Thomas B. Greenslade, Jr.

Department of Physics

Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio 43022


This is a report on an intensive summer program at Kenyon College for high school teachers funded during the decade of the nineteen nineties by the Howard Hughes Medical Institutes (HHMI). The intensity of the work and the technology of

the program were its distinguishing characteristics. Let me tell you its story.

Organizing the Program:

Kenyon College is a purely liberal arts college with no

tradition of teacher preparation. We have considerable strength

in physics, with five faculty members and seven to eight majors

graduating each year. Some of our physics graduates go on to

teach at the secondary level, but almost all of them are in the

independent schools. There was no local expertise for organizing

and setting goals for the Howard Hughes program.

Therefore, I called on four experienced high school physics

teachers in the summer of 1988 to help define the program. Mark

Carle of University School in Cleveland was a former president

of the Ohio Section of the American Association of Physics

Teachers, and my colleague in a joint physics course taught at

his school.1 Judith Doyle was the physics teacher at Newark High

School in Newark Ohio. She had a Ph.D. in chemistry, and was

both an experienced teacher and the leader of many workshops

for high school science teachers. William Reitz, now at Hoover

High School in North Canton, Ohio, former Ohio Section

president, was an expert in the use of computers in the laboratory,

and an ace demonstrator. Many of us have seen him with Gene

Easter at AAPT meetings, doing demonstrations in their beanies

with propellers on top! Richard Zitto, now at Youngstown StateUniversity, but then at Boardman High School in Ohio, was a

convener of the Youngstown Area Physics Alliance, and a third

former president of the Ohio Section.

This group knew the nuances of teaching physics in the high

schools that were not apparent to me. We met for several days,

and produced the following operating principles for the program:

1. We would have only ten teachers for a four- week summer

session, thus allowing us to work closely with them as

individuals.

2. The teachers would be awarded four hours of graduate

credit.

3. We would provide room and board, travel expenses, anda stipend of $1000 for the four weeks.

4. In general, the mornings would be devoted to lecture,

demonstration and discussion, and the afternoons to experiment

and construction. I would give the lectures, and my four

colleagues, each of whom came for one week, would oversee

the afternoon program.

5. The working assumption was that the teachers were

experienced in course and classroom management, but needed

some help to bring their courses up to standard. This resulted in

the name Secondary School Enhancement Program in Physics.

As we will see, this hypothesis required some stretching in actual

practice.

We had available a sum of $100,000 from a Howard Hughes

grant (plus another $12,000 from other sources) for the summers

of 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992. A second HHMI grant provided

$72,000 for the summers of 1999 and 2000, when considerable

technology was added to the program.

The Teachers:

Averaging over teachers is tricky, but the hypothetical typical

teacher was from a small city or large town with one or two high

schools, was the only physics teacher in the school, taught one or

two sections of physics, had one to two years of courses in physics

at a public institution, and had been teaching for ten years. There

were 18 women and 43 men. Figure 1 shows teachers from West

Virginia and Ohio locating their home schools.

There were, of course, some exceptions. Three physics major

graduates of Kenyon and one of Denison University, with zero

or little teaching experience, went through the program. The

experienced high school teachers took them under the proverbialwing, and taught them the realities of secondary school teaching.

In another case, one experienced teacher spent the evenings

Fig. 1. Teachers from West Virginia and Ohio locating their home

schools on maps in the lounge.

8/3/2019 jpteo1(1)june02



mentoring another teacher who was coming into physics teaching

after teaching music for many years.

On the other hand, we had a couple of teachers who had

been full undergraduate physics majors a number of years ago,

and needed a refresher course. The most extreme case was a

teacher from the Sand Hills region of Nebraska who taught six

classes and all of the science courses in his small high school,

but had never taken a college physics course.

The teachers spent their coffee breaks during the first fewdays discussing their schools, telling battle stories and discussing

(and damning) administration policies. Pretty soon this died away

and the discussions reverted to physics and physics teaching.

Few of the teachers had ever been in contact with other physics

teachers for a lengthy period of time, and they had a lot of catching

up to do. Many of the teachers belonged to the National Science

Teachers Association, but few were members of the American

Association of Physics Teachers. For the first four years I

provided a one year membership to the AAPT with a subscription

to The Physics Teacher .

However, all of them had developed interesting

demonstrations, experiments and approaches to the teaching of

physics. We tapped this lode of information by asking the teachers

to give short talks, which they seemed eager to do after getting

over the initial embarrassment of making presentations to their

peers. A good example was the talk about bridge-building contests

that had served as a focal point for the year at a small, rural

school in northeastern Ohio. Figure 2 shows Sr. Irene Gerdeman

demonstrating the proper technique for pulling a tablecloth out

from under a plate.

Over the course of the programs I took hundreds of black

and white 35 mm

photographs, and

spent many

w e e k e n d sdeveloping film and

printing pictures to

hand out to the

teachers on Monday

morning. Copies of

the pictures from

the current year and

selected pictures

from previous years

were pinned up on a

large bulletin board

outside of the

classroom that wasthe teacher’s lounge

during the summer

sessions. This room

held the coffee pot,

back copies of The

Physics Teacher ,

and copies of the lab

handouts and other materials developed by the teachers for their

own classes.

The Formal Lectures:

The text for the course was Franklin Miller, College Physics,

fifth edition. This well-respected text, on the algebra-based level,

was chosen because of the style of its writing. At Kenyon we

have found that some students taking the calculus-level course

borrow copies of Miller because it is so well written. In some

years regular homework problems were assigned and discussed

in class the next day.

The overall schedule for the year 2000 course is given in

Table I. We decided to start with mechanics because the basic

topics were familiar, allowing us to bring in new treatments with

little pain. For example, I discussed a new analytical method by

Zebrowski2

of deriving the equation for centripetal acceleration.When discussing kinematics, there was a good deal of emphasis

placed on learning the various graphical signatures of uniform

and uniformly accelerated motion. At this point in the course I

often stopped to ask how the participants taught a particular topic,

and this usually led to useful discussions. We noticed that many

of the teachers spent enormous amounts of time on mechanics in

their own classes, teaching and reteaching it until the students

got it right.

Although the structure and pace of the lectures was that of a

college-level course, it was made clear that we did not think that

the secondary school course should necessarily follow the lead

of the college course. Indeed, we touched a number of times on

the differences of the two courses, with the high school courselooking at phenomena and developing techniques for describing

them.

A certain amount of history of science crept into the lectures,

based on my own interests. Unlike undergraduate students, who

want you to give them the answers to the questions on the MCAT

exams, the teachers quite liked this material, and enjoyed a lecture

on the history of photography that had a good deal of optics

concealed in it.

Fig. 2. Sr. Irene Gerdeman demonstrating

the proper technique of pulling a

tablecloth out from under a plate.

Fig. 3. Dick Zitto showing his nail balancer to Sr. Irene Gerdeman.

8/3/2019 jpteo1(1)june02



Certain topics were taught that were unlikely to be used

directly in the high school physics course. An example was the

Bohr model of the atom, starting with Bohr’s postulates and

ending with the equation for the wavelength of the spectral lines

for hydrogen. Quite a number of the teachers told me that they

had never seen this worked through, even though they taught the

Bohr atom in their chemistry course (most of them also taught

chemistry).

Accompanying the lectures were many demonstrations,using simple apparatus and human kinetics whenever possible.

Dick Zitto (Fig. 3) had an engaging set of center of mass

demonstrations, and I did realistic mimings of a weight lifter

and a tightrope walker in action. We welcomed demonstrations

brought in by the teachers, and used these as springboards for

discussions of how to use demonstrations in the classroom. In

some years we gave the teachers copies of Demonstration

Experiments in Physics by George Freier 3 and discussed

experiments from the book.

The one thing that the teachers wanted nothing of was formal

education material. Our one attempt to get an expert to talk about

assessment was unsuccessful; the material was fine, but the

teachers wanted physics, not education. We also met defeat on

the subject of programming in BASIC; the staff thought that this

was a useful exercise and the participants did not.

On the last day Mark Carle gave a splendid lecture on

quantum ideas that served to tie together the ideas we had talked

about for a month. Wisely, I planned nothing after his

presentation.

Experiments:

As soon as a piece of apparatus was built, it was used in an

experiment, and the teachers were asked to write laboratory notes

for it in language that was appropriate for their students. These

notes were then distributed to the group. The idea was that thehard-worked teachers should be able to put into use at once a

piece of apparatus that they built, and with their own laboratory

notes, thus breaking the cycle of “I don’t have time to find/set up

the apparatus and find/write the laboratory notes” that is a real

problem for many of them.

For the first four years we designed a number of experiments

around the use of Apple II+ computers, mostly using Vernier

Software for the control of photogates using the Precision Timer

system. Vernier also supplied the kits (at cost) for the photogate

systems that the teachers put together. During the course of the

program we taught a lot of people how to solder an electrical

connection! We also used the Vernier Software Ray Tracking

program when studying optics.In the last two years of the program we turned away from

the use of the computer for taking data, and instead turned to the

video camera and stopped-image playback of the taped

phenomena. Figure 4 shows a group of teachers using several

monochrome computer monitors connected in parallel to the

output of a VCR elsewhere.

We gave away a certain amount of computer apparatus. In

1999 each teacher got a 486 computer that had been phased out

of Kenyon programs. These machines were dreadfully slow, but

were just right for data analysis using the PHYSFIT curve-fitting

program that we had developed at Kenyon.5 In earlier years, I

was able to collect and pass on several Apple II+ computers,

again for data analysis.

At one point, I realized that although the teachers could set

up problems on the blackboard with series and parallel direct

current circuits, they were not skilled at setting up the actual

circuits. Therefore, we added an exploratory experiment to give

them experience in such topics as “where do I put the ammeter

in the circuits” that their students also have trouble with. This

experiment then made it back into the set of introductory

laboratory experiments at Kenyon, from which it had beenremoved a number of years before because we thought that it

was too simple. There were several experiments that showed

phenomena on a sophisticated level. Most of these were designed

to give the teachers some background in modern physics,

including the Millikan oil drop experiment to measure the charge

on the electron, the charge to mass ratio of the electron and the

photoelectric effect. Kenyon has a 5 curie neutron source, and

we irradiated silver foils and made a videotape of the front of a

Geiger counter (along with a clock) so that the half life of the

activated silver (about 2.3 minutes) could be found. The teachers

took home this tape so that students could do, at least vicariously,

an experiment rarely done even by college undergraduates. This

tape also included phenomena to be investigated later using thestop-action function of the VCR.

A very popular experiment in the last week of the course

was the production of a single beam hologram; the common

comment was that it looked so hard and was actually so easy. We

did not leave this only as an experiment, however – the teachers

also had a lecture by Mark Carle on the theory of the hologram.

Another popular experiment was the use of a century-old 5”x7”

view camera to make negatives on photographic paper instead

Fig. 4. A group of teachers using several monochrome computer

monitors connected in parallel to the output of a VCR to analyze

motion.

8/3/2019 jpteo1(1)june02



of film, which were then used to produce positives by contact

printing6.

Judy Doyle was good at presenting AAPT workshops, and

we included three of them in the program: electrostatics, data

acquisition with programmable calculators and student

confidence in physics. The latter had me a bit nervous, as it

included a video of really terrible examples of teaching; I kept

wondering if I had ever done anything quite that bad. The teachers

caught hold of the ideas, and always had a good discussion of practical teaching techniques. Figure 5 shows Judy demonstrating

the fine points of programmable calculator use.

During fine evenings my colleague, Paula Turner, had

viewing sessions at the Franklin Miller Observatory on the

Kenyon Campus through a fourteen inch telescope.

Construction of Apparatus:

For many

teachers the

construction of

apparatus was the

high point of the

course. We

recognized that

most teachers were

overburdened with

preparations and

classes, and had

little time or

experience to make

apparatus. On the

other hand, few of

them had budgets

large enough to

buy apparatus,even in groups of

one.

Most of the

apparatus we built

was for

demonstrating and

observing the

phenomena of mechanics. The two large projects that drew the

most attention were the Giant Air Pucks and the Air Tracks. In

Figure 6, Kathryn Cole and her hovercraft formed a nearly

isolated system that reacted to the inversion of a spinning bicycle-

wheel gyroscope7. Assembly-line techniques were used to cut

out the disks, sand the edges, fasten on the baggy bottom sheet(held in the middle with a big thin plywood washer) and cut the

holes in them. Bill Reitz told us about the air pucks in 1988, but

clearly they have been in use before that time. For many teachers,

male and female, this was the first time they had used hand and

power tools.

The air track was the Woodrow Wilson style, based on a

design used in summer programs at Princeton. It is a six-foot

length of square plastic down-spouting with #60 holes drilled on

Mon 6/26 Check in. Class and lab on 1-D kinematics

using video systems

Tue 6/27 Class and lab on 2-D kinematics using video

and film systems

Wed 6/28 Class on linear dynamics & energy. Air track

construction

Thu 6/29 Class and experiments on linear dynamics &

energy. Make air pucks

Fri 6/30 Class and experiment on momentum, center

of mass, energy

Mon 7/3 Class and experiment on rotational kinematics

and dynamics

Tue 7/4 Class on rotational dynamics. Parade. Make

ultrasonic apparatus

Wed 7/5 Class and experiment on SHM and oscillations.

Speed of sound exptThu 7/6 Class and experiment on waves. Ultrasonic

interferometers

Fri 7/7 Class on acoustics and music.

Mon 7/10 Classes on electrostatics and electrostatics

workshop

Tue 7/11 Class and experiments on direct current

experiments

Wed 7/12 Electric fields and electron ballistics.

Exponential decay experiments

Thu 7/13 Class on magnetic fields. Student Confidence

Workshop

Fri 7/14 Class on magnetic fields. Charge and mass of

the electron

Mon 7/17 Class and experiment with optics. RC decay

with oscilloscope

Tue 7/18 Class and experiment with optics

Wed 7/19 Class and experiment on wave optics. Decay

of radioactive silver

Thu 7/20 Class and experiment on the Bohr atom.Holography

Fri 7/21 Class on modern physics and applied optics

Table 1. This is the schedule for the program held during

June and July 2000. Note the “Parade” on July 4 th when

we all went to see the Gambier Fourth of July Parade,

including a performance by the Gambier Mime School.

Fig. 5. Carrie Baker and Steve Sparks being

shown the fine points of programmable

calculator use by Judy Doyle.

8/3/2019 jpteo1(1)june02



both upper sides down its length. The pucks were lengths of

aluminum angle. Again, mass-production techniques were used

to build the tracks efficiently

One of the most popular projects was the set of two

seemingly-identical moment of inertia batons that each teacher

built. These were made of plastic pipe, with one baton evenly

loaded at the ends and the other loaded at the center. When

grasped at the center and rotated, their response was dramaticallydifferent.

Another interesting construction project, at least among the

Ohioans, was gluing a road map of Ohio onto a foam-board

backing, cutting it out, and finding the center of mass of the state

(Centerburg!) by suspending the state from Toledo, Youngstown

and Cincinnati.

Technology:

The budget was increased considerably in the last two years

of the program to allow the introduction of more technology.

The teachers were supplied with a 20 MHz dual beam

oscilloscope, a function generator (sine, square, sawtooth waves)

with a digital readout, a He-Ne laser, a low voltage power supplyand a reasonably good multimeter. They built sets of three

ultrasonic transducers operating at 40 KHz, and learned to do a

number of experiments with them, using the function generator

as a driver and the oscilloscope as an output device.8 I included a

thorough discussion of one of my favorite topics, Lissajous

figures, and the students learned how to create them with the

oscilloscope and function generator.

The function generator was used to generate square waves,

which were then used to charge a capacitor, with the resulting

decay being observed on an oscilloscope. This experiment served

as an introduction to the mathematics of exponential decay that

was encountered later in the silver decay experiment.

Successes:

The course had several surprising outcomes. One teacher

from the first year brought his knowledge of physics up to the point that he is now teaching a Kenyon-sponsored, non-calculus-

level physics course in his school in the Cleveland area. The

students get Kenyon transfer credit, and also do quite well in the

Advanced Placement examinations. A second teacher, originally

trained in biology, used the experience from the HHMI program

to write a successful NSF-sponsored proposal to teach science

to elementary and middle school teachers in her medium-sized

Ohio city over a four year span in the mid-nineties. And, she

hired Greenslade and Zitto to teach the physics segment of the

program! Another teacher from the far Midwest started a

university summer course based on the HHMI model.

An unexpected success was the marriage of two of the

participants two years after the summer program. I felt like a

fairy godfather when I went to the wedding.

References:

1. Mark A. Carle and Thomas B. Greenslade, Jr., “A Model for

School-College Cooperation”, Phys. Teach., 21, 569-572

(1983)

2. Ernest Zebrowski, Jr., “On the Derivation of the Centripetal

Acceleration Formula”, Phys. Teach., 10, 527-528 (1972)

3. G. D. Freier and F. J. Anderson, A Demonstration Handbook

for Physics (American Association of Physics Teachers,

College Park, MD)

4. Thomas B. Greenslade, et al., “Adding Eyes to Your Computer”, Phys. Teach., 35, 22-26 (1997)

5. Ref. 4

6. Thomas B. Greenslade, Jr., “Photography in the Classroom”,

Phys. Teach., 28, 148-154 (1990)

7. Thomas B. Greenslade, Jr., “Gyroscopic Control of

Hovercraft”, Phys. Teach., 31, 4-5 (1993)

8. Thomas B. Greenslade, Jr., “Experiments with Ultrasonic

Transducers”, Phys. Teach., 32, 392-398 (1994)

Fig. 6. Kathryn Cole and her hovercraft formed a nearly isolated

system that reacted to the inversion of a spinning bicycle-wheel

gyroscope.6

JPTEO JPTEO

8/3/2019 jpteo1(1)june02



Clinical experiences for high school physics teacher candidates

Classroom Management Styles

There are a number of management styles that both parents

and teachers exhibit. There have been a number of psychological

studies of parenting styles that naturally would appear to extend

to classroom management styles for teachers. I hypothesize that

such a relationship exists. Classroom management styles of

teachers can be characterized along two dimensions: type of

control exercised over students, and degree of involvement of

teachers with students. The extremes of these two dimensionsallow teacher management of students to be readily identified.

Control can run the gambit from high in which teachers explicitly

“lay down the law” and very strictly enforce it, to low in which

the teachers have no rules and no expectations for their students.

Involvement, likewise, can range from high to low. High

involvement is characteristic of teachers who have high regard

for students, likes students, enjoy being around students, and want

to see students do their best. On the other hand, low involvement

shows a real lack of both regard and concern for students. The

classroom management styles of teachers can be readily identified

on the basis of both degree of control and level of involvement.

The nature of each management style can be identified from the

chart below.

According to Baumrind1, the authoritative style encourages

independence, is warm and nurturing, control occurs along with

explanation, and adolescents are permitted to express their views.

The authoritarian style tends to be punitive and restrictive, and

students have neither a say in their management, nor are they

seen to need explanations. The permissive style is characterized

by a lack of involvement, the environment is non-punitive, there

are few demands on students, and there is a lot of freedom. The

indulgent style presents an environment where there are no

demands on the student of any sort, and the students are actively

supported in their efforts to seek their own ends using any

reasonable means. These four styles represent extremes, and most

teachers demonstrate a certain degree of inconsistency in their

use of styles. Research has shown that the type of management

style results in characteristic behaviors. The authoritative style

helps to produce students who are socially competent and

responsible. The authoritarian style helps to produce students

who are ineffective at social interaction, and somewhat inactive.

Both indulgent and permissive styles help to produce students

that are immature, show poor self-restraint, and who exhibit poor

leadership skills. What sort of classroom management style will

you exhibit once you begin teaching? Which style you

demonstrate is most consistent with your upbringing, and degreeand type of preparation as a teacher. Which style is most consistent

with your personality? Would you feel comfortable with this

style? High might you work to change it if you don’t like what

you see?

Reference:

1. Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority.

Developmental Psychology Monographs, 4(1).


In 1991, the AAAS published Barrier F R E E in Brief, a set

of books containing very useful information for those who work

with students with disabilities. Two key sets of information are

worth noting: access in both word and deed. When it comes to

language, the following points should be kept in mind: put people

first, not their disabilities; avoid identifying a group of people as

a disability category; describe mobility aids or other technology

as useful devices to the individuals rather than extensions of

themselves; avoid emotional or degrading terms; remember to

distinguish between disabilities and handicaps and the non-

disabled and “normal.” There are other courtesies that should be

extended to those with disabilities: always speak to a person with

a disability directly, even if an interpreter is present; when

speaking with someone in a wheelchair for more than a few

minutes, sit down; when talking to someone with a hearing

impairment, look directly at the person and speak clearly. Never shout; use notes; to gain the attention of someone who is deaf,

wave hand or tap on shoulder; assist those with visual

impairments to take your arm, after identifying yourself; don’t

make assumptions about person or disability; ask before you help,

and relax. The Americans with Disabilities Act ensures those

with disabilities equal access to education. As such, schools must

remain barrier free. On the following page you will find a Built

Environment Checklist that can be used to determine just how

accessible a school site is for its students with disabilities.

Teacher Involvement

ControlHigh Low

High Authoritative Authoritarian

Low Indulgent Permissive

Column Editor: Carl J. Wenning

Department of Physics, Illinois State University, Campus Box 4560, Normal, IL 61790-4560


Clinical experiences for teacher candidates are designed to bridge the gap between educational theory and practice. They

should provide students with a chance to apply their knowledge of physics, adolescent psychology, and pedagogical theoryto physics teaching. Several clinical experience activities will be offered in this column regularly as a means of improving

novice teacher practice. Readers are encouraged to send in examples of their own clinical experiences for publication in

this column.

8/3/2019 jpteo1(1)june02



TEACHER CONTROL OF STUDENTS: Score Average

Classroom rules (score 3 if highly detailed, 2 if moderately detailed, score 1 if only

states basic principles)

Enforcement of rules (score 3 if teacher complains about minutia, score 2 if teacher

remarks about only important matters, score 1 if doesn't care).

Use of punishment (score 3 if frequent, score 2 if infrequent, score 1 if not observed.)

Expression of student opinions (score 3 if frequent, score 2 if infrequent, score 1 if

never)

Calculate Average

TEACHER INVOLVEMENT WITH STUDENTS. Score Average

Teacher regard for students (score 3 if high, score 2 if moderate, score 1 if teacher

appears not to care)

Affection for students (score 3 if teacher appears to like students, score 2 if teacher

appears neutral, score 1 if teacher appears to dislike students)

Expressions of high expectations for students (score 3 if frequent, score 2 if infrequent,

score 1 if teacher appears not to care)

Encouraging student independence (score 3 if teacher stresses self-reliance andresponsibility, score 2 if significant guidance, score 1 if teacher micromanages)

Calculate Average

Classroom Management Style Assessment

Observe a teacher’s classroom management style in an attempt to determine what sort of practice is employed — authoritative,

authoritarian, indulgent, permissive, or mixed — as characterized by Baumrind (1971). Examine behaviors as they relate to student

control and student involvement. Based upon your assessments in these areas and the modified Baumrind matrix, determine classroom

management style. Place a “3” in the box if this aspect is observed to a high degree, a “2” if observed to a moderate degree, and a

“1” if observed to a low degree. Average your scores in each area (control and involvement). Plot the averages for teacher control of

students and teacher involvement with students on the grid near below. Compare this result with the information found on the previous page.

Teacher Management Style: ___________________________

Teacher Involvement

Teacher Control

1

123

2

3

8/3/2019 jpteo1(1)june02



YES NO

STUDENT PARKING:

Are there well-marked, handicap-accessible (16’ wide) parking spaces near an accessible

entrance?

Is there a sufficient number of accessible parking spaces available?

Is there a wheelchair-accessible pathway leading from the parking area to an accessible entrance?OUTDOOR ACCESS:

Are there curb cuts from the sidewalk to the street and parking lot?

Do ramps exceed an 8% slope or a 1/12 rise-to-run ratio?

Are accessible entrances to the building at least 32 inches wide?

Do the accessible doors have a door-opening assist mechanism?

INSIDE THE BUILDING:

Are doorway thresholds less than 1/2 inch in height?

Are doorways at least 32 inches wide? (clear width)

Do ramps exceed an 8% slope or a 1/12 rise-to-run ratio?

Are there protruding objects from the walls that might pose a danger to students who are visually

impaired? (protrusions more than 4 inches)

Are there student-accessible elevators?

Are all elevator buttons marked in Braille numbers or raised notation?

Do the elevators have auditory and visual indicators for floors?

Where telephone are available for students, are lower public telephones provided for persons who

use wheelchairs?

Are volume-control telephones available for people who need them?

Are telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDDs) available anywhere?

Can water fountains be used by someone sitting in a wheelchair?

RESTROOMS:

Are there wheelchair-accessible restrooms near the classroom or laboratory?

Are wheelchair-accessible restrooms available on each floor?

Are grab bars placed a maximum of 1-1/2 inch from the walls of stalls?

Are sinks, soap and towel dispensers and other accessories within easy reach of someone who is

short-statured or sitting in a wheelchair?

CLASSROOMS:

Are students with a disability able to adjust seating so as to make the best accommodation?

Are assistive listening devices available to students in need?

Are visual aids available as needed?

Are available TVs capable of showing closed captioning?

LABS:

Are the isles at least 42 to 48 inches wide?

Are workplaces available as needed that have:

controls for safety and utility equipment that are easy to reach and to use by studentswith disabilities?

faucets and valves with lever handles, push-plate switches, and large push buttons for

those with limited strength/dexterity?

work surfaces no higher than 30 inches from the floor for use by those in wheel chairs?

cleared spaces under work surfaces with free space at least 29 inches high, 36 inches

wide, and 20 inches deep for leg room?

work tables for equipment such as microscopes can also be lowered for people in

wheelchairs or with short stature?


Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	chua-van-houten
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

jpteo1(1)june02

Documents